公告搜索（同花顺问财）

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the data source and the return fields, which is useful, but it does not mention limitations such as coverage time range, result completeness, potential delays, or behavior when no announcements match.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and well-structured: the first sentence covers scope, types, and return fields, while the second cites the source. No filler or redundant phrasing is present.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential contract: scope, announcement types, returned fields, and data source. A short example query or caveats about result limits would improve it, but nothing critical is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters ('query' and 'size'), so the schema already documents their meaning. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the operation ('查询') and the resource ('公告'), and goes further by listing the supported markets, announcement categories, and returned fields. This makes it straightforward to distinguish from sibling tools like search_news and search_reports.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context: use this tool for announcements of A-shares, HK stocks, funds, ETFs, and similar financial instruments. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource type and category list are specific enough to enable correct tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.